RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

    
  Topic: FL and gene duplication ala Jerry Bergman< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
SLP



Posts: 136
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 16 2010,11:35   

In a discussion on increases in genetic information on another forum, gene duplication was presented as a means by which non-intelligent intervention can increase genetic information.

Mellotron/FL countered with one of his patented long quotes from YEC Jerry Bergman (italics and bolds (except for the title) mine):
Quote

Does gene duplication provide the engine for evolution?

by Jerry Bergman

....The proposition that large scale evolution has occurred via gene duplication is contradicted by numerous lines of evidence. Little evidence currently exists to support the belief that gene duplication is a significant source of new genes, supporting one University of South Carolina molecular evolutionist’s conclusion that scientists can not ‘prove that [genome duplication] didn’t happen, but [if it did], it didn’t have a major impact. … For me, it’s a dead issue’. (Ref 10)

...
According to Hughes, ‘Everything we’ve looked at [fails to] support the hypothesis.’ (39)

Darwinists promote gene duplication as an important means of evolution, not because of the evidence, but because they see no other viable mechanism to produce the required large number of new functional genes to turn a microbe into a microbiologist.

In other words, evolution by gene-duplication is yet another example of just-so story-telling.

Refs:

(10) Pennisi, E., Gene duplications: the stuff of evolution? Science v294: page2458, 2001.

(30) Behe, M.J. and Snoke, D.W., Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues, Protein Science 13:2651–2664, 2004; p. 2652.

(39) Pennisi, ref. 1, p. 2460.

So, I read Bergman's article, and I decided to check one of his sources, Googling this article:

Pennisi, E., Gene duplications: the stuff of evolution? Science v294: page2458, 2001.


And darn it if the returns I got were to THIS article:
Quote

Science 21 December 2001:
Vol. 294. no. 5551, pp. 2458 - 2460
DOI: 10.1126/science.294.5551.2458

News Focus

MOLECULAR EVOLUTION:
Genome Duplications: The Stuff of Evolution?

Elizabeth Pennisi
The controversial--and formerly unprovable--proposition that evolution moves forward through duplication of entire genomes is getting support from current advances in molecular biology. The emerging data have not persuaded all of the skeptics, however. They maintain that evolutionary change could have been fueled by duplication of individual genes or perhaps segments of chromosomes--without invoking anything as dramatic as genome duplications.

Note what I underlined -

FIRST - Bergman misrepresents the title - in the Bergman article, in his references, the word "Gene" is in italics, while the rest of the title is not. Interesting...

SECOND - read the abstract. Not only is the article not even really about gene duplications as such, but rather GENOME duplications, the abstract actually indicates that GENE DUPLICATIONS are more likley a cause of evolution!

THIRD - Mellotron/FL, who had originally referred to the Bergman article, claimed that Bergman's manipulation of the title was a mere "typo" of a mere 2 letters, and that my pointing this out was due to my bias against Bergman (I admit, I am biased against any person with a well documented history of lying about and/or misrepresenting all manner of things related to evolution).

THE QUESTION:


Does anyone truly believe:

1. That Bergman's 'error' was a mere typo

2. That Bergman correctly represented the content of the article (judging by the abstract, anyway)

3. Mellotron/FL is not merely engaging in obfuscation to protect one of his YEC hero-sources?

Thanks

p.s. - I should point out that Bergman also claims that Down syndrome is caused by a gene duplication, but it is caused by an extra chromosome....

p.p.s - I should also point out that the above article was the only one I actually checked...


p.p.p.s. - I should also point out that I did contact Bergman about it and he did indeed claim that it was a mere typo and that genome duplications are really just big gene duplications, so his use of quotes about genome suplications supporting his claims about gene duplications is OK.

  
  11 replies since April 16 2010,11:35 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

    


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]